(September 20, 2011 at 7:59 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Oh, I get it. Forgive my newness to this whole philoso-babble defense of Christianity.
I forgive your philosophical ignorance for the time being.
Quote: "You can't account for morality but we can because GodWillsIt"
Not quite, you can’t account for the universal and transcendent form of morality that you always appeal to, Christians can.
Quote: "You can't account for why you use logic but we can because GodWillIt"
Not quite, given your naturalism you can’t account for the universal, unchanging, and abstract laws of logic that you appeal to, Christians can though because logic is a reflection of the way God thinks.
Quote: "You can't account for how life began but we can because GodDidIt"
Not part of the argument here.
Quote: "You can't account for induction but we can because GodDoesIt"
Not quite, you can’t account for the uniformity of nature given your naturalism; it is this uniformity that the principle of induction works off of. It is the principle of induction that is the foundation for all science. Christians can account for the uniformity of nature, induction, and science because God upholds His creation in a predictable and consistent manner.
Quote: Same crap packaged in a slightly different way.
Calling something you seem completely unable to even accurately characterize much less refute “crap” seems a bit childish and silly.
Quote:Ask an abstract question with no easy answer
They all have very easy answers, if you are a believer. If you are not, then I am afraid they don’t have any correct answers.
Quote: I've already been all over why this is crap philosophy specially designed to work toward the preconceived conclusion that Jesus is Lord because you need to logically justify a belief that supposedly eschews the need for logical justification.
If you had only one ultimate presupposition that you had left unjustified then you’d be on pretty solid ground with the Christian, unfortunately you have over half a dozen you can’t justify.
Quote: Other yet unknown factors are what must be proven to exist.
No, the uniformity of nature is what you have to prove exists. You assume it exists but I have seen no proof provided by you that it actually does.
